I agree with this. If Dinosaurs roamed the earth over 65 million years ago. And the earth is predicted to be swallowed up by the sun's red giant transformation in about 5 billion years. We have more than enough time.

Could it be that people are so short sighted when it comes to comprehending the extent of how long that is? 5 Billion, our recorded history is a mere few thousand years old. Thousands vs Billions..To say never is just ignorant.

I agree with this. If Dinosaurs roamed the earth over 65 million years ago. And the earth is predicted to be swallowed up by the sun's red giant transformation in about 5 billion years. We have more than enough time.

Could it be that people are so short sighted when it comes to comprehending the extent of how long that is? 5 Billion, our recorded history is a mere few thousand years old. Thousands vs Billions..To say never is just ignorant.

People tend to be shortsighted, lack vision or be extremely cynical these days. Its a shame.

BTW the earth will die long before our sun goes to supernova, in about 1,4 billion years suns temperature is so high already that everything living here will be extinguished, unless some solution is found(like terraforming another earth and transplanting species there or moving the planet itself furthrer from sun). By that time I think we will have a solution for it, if humans still exist.

Yup! People used to fight wars over nitrogen soils for their crops. The Fitz Haber came around and invented the Haber process and now we pull the nitrogen right out of the atmosphere for our fertilizers, rather than having to find bat guano sources. Now we fight over other stuff. I wonder what the next thing will be when we conquer energy production.

Things don't work this way in physics.

Look, everyone, I love the idea of traveling to other starts as well, but it's simply a fact that a vast majority of physicists think it will never be possible for humanity to travel at FTL speeds. You might use the argument that that's what people always said in the past about other incredible achievements. My counter argument is that real, modern-like physics has existed for 120 or 110 years which is why using history to believe certain wishes will come true is bad.

The reason we probably aren't going to travel at FTL isn't that we simply can't do it as a species. It's because the universe doesn't allow it.

Edit: I'd also like to add that a new Einstein isn't going to happen. Physics is extremely close to explaining the entire universe. There are only really 3 goals left in physics; uniting gravity and quantum mechanics, explaining dark energy and explaining dark matter. These are Nobels waiting to be handed away, but none of it will ever match what Einstein did with gravity or what the quantum mechanics people (Schroedinger, Niels Bohr, Max Planck, Richard Feynman, etc.) did with quantum mechanics.

Imagine if we travelled through most of the universe and we started having documentary shows on tv about aliens on another planet on how they live and stuff.
That show would be the highest rating show on earth.

Look, everyone, I love the idea of traveling to other starts as well, but it's simply a fact that a vast majority of physicists think it will never be possible for humanity to travel at FTL speeds. You might use the argument that that's what people always said in the past about other incredible achievements. My counter argument is that real, modern-like physics has existed for 120 or 110 years which is why using history to believe certain wishes will come true is bad.

The reason we probably aren't going to travel at FTL isn't that we simply can't do it as a species. It's because the universe doesn't allow it.

Edit: I'd also like to add that a new Einstein isn't going to happen. Physics is extremely close to explaining the entire universe. There are only really 3 goals left in physics; uniting gravity and quantum mechanics, explaining dark energy and explaining dark matter. These are Nobels waiting to be handed away, but none of it will ever match what Einstein did with gravity or what the quantum mechanics people (Schroedinger, Niels Bohr, Max Planck, Richard Feynman, etc.) did with quantum mechanics.

Eh, people thought Newton's theories of physics explained everything perfectly once upon a time also. Besides, Alcubierre drives are at least a theoretical possibility, which hints tantalizingly at ideas we haven't considered yet. I'm not ruling us out yet.

'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

Eh, people thought Newton's theories of physics explained everything perfectly once upon a time also.

They didn't, really. Newton's theories explain perfectly how stuff happens. They didn't explain why they happen or what mechanism make it happen. Current physical theories do.

Originally Posted by Reeve

Besides, Alcubierre drives are at least a theoretical possibility, which hints tantalizingly at ideas we haven't considered yet. I'm not ruling us out yet.

I'm not saying we wont actually do it. I'm just saying it's not 50-50. We're allowed to make assumptions given the evidence we have. The current evidence says we never will. What you're left with is history. People like to use historical examples in this case. I've already said why such analogies are invalid. Science and physics as they're defined today have existed for such a short time that there aren't any examples of theories that were refuted.

That's all assuming there's no limit of discovery that humans can reach. An assumption that most physicists, people trained in this field, would reject. But then again, what the hell does the opinion of professionals matter when they're obviously biased, right?

In 1894, Nobel Laureate Albert A. Michelson said, "The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote."

Then Einstein came along and stood the physics world on its head. People have been thinking we've reached the edges of our understanding for centuries now. We keep proving them wrong. I learned this quote from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who would certainly disagree with you "that most physicists, people trained in this field, would reject."

And we're only just getting our feet wet in the world of quantum mechanics. There's still far more we don't know than we do, so far as I'm concerned.

Last edited by Reeve; 2013-02-05 at 10:13 PM.

'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

And we're only just getting our feet wet in the world of quantum mechanics. There's still far more we don't know than we do, so far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure about this. The Standard Model of particles is essentially full and all of its particles have been discovered, with the exception of the graviton, which also means that relativity and quantum mechanics haven't been unified yet. As far as I know, those are the only gaps in quantum mechanics. I mean, quantum mechanics has done a lot, it's explained electromagnetism, nuclear radiation, how particles and molecules form, what the world is made of, etc. It only remains for gravity to be explained by quantum mechanics.

So yeah, I'd say that quantum mechanics is one of those theories about which we know more than we don't. On a slightly unrelated note, it just happens to be that quantum mechanics (specifically quantum electrodynamics) is the most proven and therefor most successful scientific theory that has ever existed.

Established rules rarely change. Whatever new discoveries we make, will not change the speed of light or the amount of energy required to accelerate mass.

To suggest that some fantastic new discovery will all the sudden make interstellar travel possible is akin to suggesting science is magic that will eventually make anything possible. If the rules of the universe exclude interstellar travel, science will never change that.

Established rules rarely change. Whatever new discoveries we make, will not change the speed of light or the amount of energy required to accelerate mass.

To suggest that some fantastic new discovery will all the sudden make interstellar travel possible is akin to suggesting science is magic that will eventually make anything possible. If the rules of the universe exclude interstellar travel, science will never change that.

Dude if you told people in ancient Greece about these inventions they wouldn't even get the concept. Just because you can't think it know doesn't mean something crazy can't be invented.

Ancient Greeks knew the world wasn't flat. And Icarus says they can grasp the idea of flying.

---------- Post added 2013-02-07 at 03:16 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Reeve

In 1894, Nobel Laureate Albert A. Michelson said, "The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote."

He went on to say "Nevertheless, it has been found that there are apparent exceptions to most of these laws, and this is particularly true when the observations are pushed to a limit, i.e., whenever the circumstances of experiment are such that extreme cases can be examined. Such examination almost surely leads, not to the overthrow of the law, but to the discovery of other facts and laws whose action produces the apparent exceptions."

So using the quote like that really essentially completely misrepresented his whole point. And he's right. Classical mechanics haven't been supplanted. Einstein didn't over turn them. He extended the model. Also you got the date wrong.

Alcubierre drive is more of a concept than a solid idea, it requires exotic matter which probably doesn't exist.
To answer OP, if we survive as a species, we will probably explore and colonize other planets/moons/asteroids, it is a basically a matter of time. However, we won't be flying around in spaceships as in Star Trek, it is a grossly inefficient to send people when robots are much more dependable, durable and easier to maintain. Von Neumann's probe is one of our best bets to fully explore our galaxy (and maybe beyond), and it will take just a million or so years. Seed ships can easily establish human colonies wherever we want, no point in lugging entire humans around.

Last I checked man's mass, body structure and aerodynamic qualities have remained largely the same, as has earth's gravity, so I conclude that men still do not fly like birds. This is kinda what I mean when I say established rules rarely change. But if you manage to get airborne by flapping your hands and/or legs, post videos.

Anyway people used to believe all sorts of things that were not based on any kind of measurements or observations. Even if they got it right, it's by dumb luck, not because someone constructed actual proof or ways to test their theories. At best they could throw a thousand men off a cliff, and if none fly, conclude that men can't fly. Comparisons from that era to the era of scientific method are not very meaningful.

I think there actually needs to be a reason, beyond meer exploration, its ok to sail a ship across the earth looking for land, and its cost effective to send small probes out into space to 'see what is in our back yard' but when your talking about traveling insane distances on the simple goal of just seeing whats there, its just not cost effective, with our current means of transportation.. we burn fossil fuels for energy, i mean, the way these things work is you need to know there will be replacement fossil fuels when you reach your destination or, your stuck there, or there was no point in making the journey in the first place.

it maybe slightly naive but its also realist, we have everything we need here, while blasting large portions of a limited resource out into space sounds like a great idea for any avid sci-fi fan who is has a throbbing boner over the prospect of finding an alien race with a touch that can cure cancer, the chances and the cost are not worth the investment based on a whim.

i'd love to see it happen one day, but the truth is, we do really have everything we actually need here, and that is as far as it needs to go, there is little point in throwing stuff out there on a hope, because with the scale of space itself, you could cut the earth up into a gazillion pieces put a human on each peice and still not find anything if you were to send each piece off in a different direction..